 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Thomas Corletta
Thomas A. Corletta, ESQ. 585-546-5072
|
|
|
DWI/ RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (CONTINUED)
In People v. K. T. (5/11/05), Mr. Corletta scored a significant victory over both prosecution and town attorneys representing the Irondequoit Police Department by persuading the Irondequoit Town Court (DeMarco J.) to sign a subpoena directing the Police Department to turn over records of a "history of violations" which they claimed justified placement of a "sobriety checkpoint". Mr. Corletta successfully argued, over vigorous objections, that under applicable Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the governments placement of such "checkpoints" cannot be arbitrary, and must be circumscribed by some rationale. When the government claims a checkpoint was placed due to a "history" of violations in a particular area, they should be prepared to back up their claim.
In People v. F. (6/28/05) Rochester City Court Judge Melchor E. Castro dismissed Driving While Intoxicated charges against Mr. Corletta's client, despite a report of a motor vehicle accident and high BAC, due to failure of police in the accusatory instrument to properly identify Defendant as the driver, or to allege he had recently operated a motor vehicle. This continued a long line of dismissals Mr. Corletta has obtained on this point.
Mr. Corletta scored still another impressive victory in People v. G (5/31/05). Facing his second felony trial for DWI, after already having been convicted of DWI twice before while being represented by other lawyers, and after already having served probation, Mr. Corletta's client faced sure incarceration if convicted again.
After a full trial in State Supreme Court, Mr. Corletta demonstrated, through effective cross-examination of the arresting officer, that his client was not intoxicated.
His client was convicted only of the lesser offense of Driving While Ability Impaired, a traffic infraction, and received just a small fine and license suspension, both of which were required by law. No probation or jail time was imposed. Mr. Corletta's 25 years of experience made the difference.
Mr. Corletta recently scored a rare across-the-board, "not guilty" verdict in People v. C. (Rochester City Ct., 10/4/04). In that case, Mr. Corletta's client was stopped for marginal crossings of the fogline on an expressway, in a spot where morotists normally cross the fogline. Mr. Corletta made this argument in his Summation. In addition, his client committed only technical violations on the field sobriety tests, and demonstrated only minimal signs of impairment. In a case tried to the Court, Mr. Corletta's client was found not guilty of all charges, including the underlying lane violations.
In People v. M.O. (10/17/05), Mr. Corletta was confronted with an accident situation; with an allegedly uncooperative and belligerent client, where alcoholic beverages were found in her vehicle. Exploiting errors in the prosecutions case, and keeping out damaging evidence through timely and proper objections, Mr. Corletta was able to limit his client's liability and obtain outright dismissal of two of the four charges.
In addition his client was found "not guilty" of the Driving While Intoxicated charge and convicted only of the lesser included traffic violation of Driving While Ability Impaired. Considering where the case began; with his client being jailed on $2,000.00 bail, this was a significant turnaround, and limited her liability to a conviction for a non-criminal traffic violation.
During late October and early November, 2005, Mr. Corletta scored an impressive string of victories on a variety of issues:
In People v. R.P. (Just. Ct., 10/05), Mr. Corletta was confronted with the unusual issue of a six year delay in a case that was pending decision on a motion made by the Defendant. The delay was through no fault of the Defendant's.
Mr. Corletta, in his Motion to Dismiss on grounds of denial of speedy trial, pointed out that the People had done nothing to move the case forward. The Court agreed, dismissing the now eight year-old case against his client, with prejudice.
In People v. C.H. (Roch. City Ct., 11/05), in a case tried to the Court only, Mr. Corletta was confronted with a bad set of facts, including DWI and an allegation his client was driving 110 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone on the expressway. The defense was that his client was in a hurry to check on his eight year-old daughter, who was injured. Mr. Corletta was successfully able to argue that his client, who was upset, distraught, and distracted, was not as grossly intoxicated as the government alleged. Mr. Corletta was also able to obtain a dismissal of the excessive Speeding charge. Mr. Corletta's client was convicted only of the lesser included traffic infraction of Driving While Ability Impaired and a minor Speeding charge, and received the minimum statutory fine and license suspension.
In People v. R. R. (Orleans Cty. Ct., 10/05), Mr. Corletta obtained a reduction of a Felony Driving While Intoxicated charge to a misdemeanor, based upon errors in presentation of the case to the Grand Jury. This case demonstrates how important it is to examine discovery materials for possible defects. Examination revealed that the People had ignored a well-established procedure for presentation of proof of a prior conviction to the Grand Jury. The result was reduction of the charge to a misdemeanor, with the Court agreeing that the People had failed to follow established procedure. This ruling placed Mr. Corletta's client in a far less precarious position.
Mr. Corletta scored an even more impressive victory in People v. M.W. (Gates Town Ct., 11/09/05). In that case, Mr. Corletta moved for dismissal of the accusatory instrument charging his client with Driving While Intoxicated. In a rarely seen move, the People conceded dismissal, ackowledging the obvious insufficiency of the accusatory instrument, without opposing Mr. Corletta's motion. This again underscores the importance of careful review of the accusatory instrument charging a Defendant with Driving While Intoxicated or any other crime.
The old adage "its never over until its over" never had more applicability than in People v. G.P. (Rochester City Ct., 1/4/05).
In that case, Mr. Corletta's client was found passed out in a carwash. Awakened by police, he drove out of the carwash bay and was immediately apprehended at gunpoint. Aggressively attacking the immediate manner in which Defendant was detained and arrested, Mr. Corletta won suppression of the field sobriety test results and breath test results, which were a .25% BAC, ultimately resulting in dismissal of the DWI charges.
Mr. Corletta's client had recently been to a "leading" DWI defense firm, touted for their expertise in such matters. Mr. Corletta's client related they were more amused by the facts than interested in helping him, and told him they could do nothing for him. Facing a sure sentence of probation and possibly jail, and having been ridiculed to boot, the client turned to Mr. Corletta, who analyzed the facts, did not give up, and obtained a superior result, earning the client's respect and gratitude. Thus, this was a case where careful analysis of the facts and not "throwing one's hands up" clearly paid off.
Mr. Corletta demonstrated that persistence does pay off in People v. A. B. ( Rochester City Ct. 1/30/06). In that case, which involved a motor vehicle accident and a .15% breath test, Mr. Corletta obtained exclusion of the breath test prior to trial. Trying the case before a jury in November 2005, Mr. Corletta created enough reasonable doubt to obtain a "hung jury" requiring re-trial. On the re-trial date, the charge was dismissed, due to the People's failure to produce all their material witnesses, including a civilian who identified Defendant as the driver, and who was of questionable credibility.
Therefore, obtaining a "hung jury" in the first trial was the functional equivalent of an acquittal, since none of the People's witnesses showed up for the second trial, requiring dismissal.
Many would have tried to negotiate a "plea bargain" following the first trial. By recognizing the weaknesses in the case and continuing to persist, Mr. Corletta obtained the equivalent of an acquittal, and his client was convicted of nothing.
This is just another example of where careful analysis of the proof, even if the case looks hopeless at the outset, can lead to a favorable result. Call us for a consultation today.
Once again, in People v. KY (Greece Town Ct.,3/16/06), Mr. Corletta showed how extensive pereparation, attention to detail, and not giving up pays off. Faced with a situation where a very zealous police officer followed his client for about two miles, and then stopped him for turning left in front of another car at an intersection, yielding an alleged .16 BAC, Mr. Corletta went on the offensive.
Citing older case law, Mr. Corletta demonstrated the stop was highly questionable, because turning left in front of another car in not necessarily a violation, unless the on-coming vehicle is close enough to constitute an "immediate hazard". Cross-examination of the officer revealed Mr. Corletta's client had plenty of room to make the turn in front of the oncoming vehicle. Therefore, he was found not guilty of that charge.
He was also found not guilty of having a BAC above the legal limit, due to several different evidentiary objections. Mr. Corletta challenged the admissibility of the documents establishing the foundation for the test. Once again, Mr. Corletta established that knowledge of the Rules of Evidence is crucial in DWI cases.
Finally, despite seemingly overwhelming evidence of intoxication given by a veteran poilice officer of 17 years experience, Mr. Corletta pointed out 15 different deficiencies in his testimony. As a result, Defendant was also found not guilty of "common law" Driving While Intoxicated, and only found guilty of the lesser-included traffic violation of Driving While Ability Impaired.
This outcome helped Mr. Corlett's client immensely in terms of possible employment consequences, and spared him the stigma of a criminal record. Mr. Corletta's client was not convicted of any of the original charges.
Once again, Mr. Corletta demonstrated that careful review of the accusatory instrument can provide an outstanding result. In People v. VH (Rochester City Ct.,3/16/06), the accusatory instrument in a DWI accident case was devoid of any factual allegation as to operation. The prosecution, recognizing this, attempted to argue that statements contained in a seperate police report should be incorporated into the accusatory instrument. Mr. Corletta correctly argued that police reports are not and never were considered accusatory instruments under the applicable statute. The Court agreed, dismissing the charge against his 60+year-old client. Mr Corletta once again demonstrated how important it is to object to improperly prepared accusatory instruments in DWI accident cases. Frequently, the accusatory instruments are so poorly prepared that they essentially ask the Court to assume facts not pled within their four-corners.
Not being discouraged by "bad facts" is important in handling DWI cases. In People v. M.D. (Brighton Town Ct., 4/24/06), Mr. Corletta achieved an acquittal for his client of all three charged counts. This case involved an accident with his client's car being found in a snow-covered median on an expressway, Mr. Corletta's client allegedly used bad language towards police. The Prosecutor attempted to emphasize this bad language to bolster her argument that Mr. Corletta's client was a belligerent drunk.
Carefully analyzing the facts, and several mistakes by the deputy who testified Mr. Corletta effectively argued that the People had offered insufficient evidence of both operation and intoxication, pointing to several key omissions in the testimony. Mr. Corletta was able to successfully argue his client was simply upset and dazed from the accident, and that his behavior was therefore understandable . Mr. Corletta also by stipulating his client was upset and may have used bad language, as opposed to his letting the deputy repeat it over and over, minimized the damaging testimony about the bad language.
Mr. Corletta also made two post-trial written submissions, which the Court cited in its Decision as being "quite good". The Court agreed with Mr. Corletta that several key indicators of intoxication were missing, and that much of the Defendant's behavior could be explained by the fact he had just been involved in an accident.
The Court found Defendant not guilty of Driving While Intoxicated, as well as two other underlying charges. The Court found Mr. Corletta's client guilty only of the lesser traffic violation of Driving While Impaired, and imposed a minimal fine. The Court praised Mr. Corletta for his advocacy as did his client, who felt, based upon his hostile behavior, that he was going to have the proverbial "book" thrown at him. A lesson to be learned is that focusing on relevant facts, as opposed to inflammatory irrelevant facts, is what counts.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
